Why won’t the government disclose the cost of climate change
Well, because they don’t want to admit that the costs of stopping it will be higher than the benefits of doing so?
I wonder why?
What are they worried about?
In the meantime, I will go with £1 trillion….nothing suggests it is less to me, based on all the estimates I have seen.
That’s for the UK alone of course.
According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5–6 degrees of temperature increase is “a real possibility.”
The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In June 2008, Stern increased the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550 ppm CO2e to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.
UK GDP is around £2 trillion at present. So Ritchie thinks that we should spend 50% of GDP to avoid a future 5% loss of GDP. Which, starting a few decades out and then discounting to the present is more or less than 50% of GDP?
This being Stern’s argument about why we don’t use planning, instead we use market forces as pushed by a carbon tax. For the latter is a more efficient method therefore we’ll solve more climate change that way.